20 Years

[Michael Bulatovich]

I got a call from a guy in my class in (architecture) school. He's arranging the 20th anniversary party of our graduation, even though only about a quarter of those who started with us finished with us. (It 's a little weird. They're even inviting people who dropped out or failed along the way...)

We were talking about 'the big court case' and other stuff, and I found out he has three boys. (I have one girl.) It occurred to me that one of the 'elephants in the room' on the carbon/climate change issue is population growth. China realized some time ago that it had to get an iron grip on the population problem or collapse from shortages of resources, but now, under the banner of sustainability, almost nobody in the west mentions reproductive limits as a significant way to reduce the 'footprint' of the species.

My colleague referred to his third as a "mistake", but I started wondering, how many kids do we get to have if we are serious about limiting our effect on the environment. How many is enough, especially in the 'advanced world' where they are not an immediate economic support to the family, but just a drain on family resources? Further, our economy would seem to be based on perpetual growth, which is obviously not sustainable unless the light barrier is broken. When do *all* the repercussions of a zero growth economy get put on the climate change table?

[3D Peruna]

It's really a "dead" issue... here's what I mean.

Because of "vast prosperity", the growth rate in most of western Europe is negative (not including immigrants). They're actually in an unsustainable trend... There will be more people dying than being born... which leads to some serious social-economic issues as most of Europe is built on welfare states. They won't have enough people to tax to take care of each succeeding generation. Not only that, but there will be labor shortages and all sorts of other problems.

The US is rapidly moving in that direction, too. The more prosperous a nation, the fewer children people have. China was somewhat forced to implement the policy because of their poverty. I suspect that it'll change, then naturally, people will stop having children. I would also bet that a study of India, the other place with a population boom, will also show that the number of children born to a couple is related in many ways to their poverty. Remove the poverty and you, in effect, "solve" the population problem.

Of course, you create other problems, too. I think population problems (and poverty) are political, not natural.

One other point, though... It's nobody's damn business how many kids any of us have or don't have. I spend days driving across vast unpopulated areas of the country.

You could give every man woman and child on the planet 1,231 sq. ft. and we'd only fill up Texas. Granted, Texas is a big state, but it's only .467% of the earth's total land mass (even if you exclude Antarctica and Wyoming, you've still got a lot of places to live).

[Michael Bulatovich]

I'm already aware of all the above, but in the context of the climate change 'discourse' nobody is mentioning the obvious impact of population replacement on future energy demand. I'm proposing a "future carbon" tax on kids ; )

Sometimes they are but I can imagine scenarios where they aren't.

It is in China, and the landscape cannot be all residential. I've tried it on Sim City.

The discussion is not about elbow room. There are finite resources, even in a static climate model. There's topsoil depletion for example, and that's before the Great Plains are commandeered to produce fuel for Arnold's Hummers. If you want to be really "green" and sustainable, one of the things you'd seem to want to "reduce" is your numbers. After the last boomer cashes their last Social Security check, who needs more people?

[++]

It's sometimes a racial issue. A number of ocuntreis are expereince negative population growth (ex. Bulgaria) while others are experiencing population growth only in cultures that are less educated, therefore, less capable of sustaining themselves in the present economy.(many examples)

Let's put all the progeny to work; let 'em pay for their keep ;)

THe all wise Sim City must know the answer.... It is more reasonable to talk about the loss of rural populace and what sectors support what economies.

And increase the numbers of the electric cars. See movie Who Killed the Electric Car?

Social Security is already finite in terms of benefits. Meanwhile, we would be helped with at least universal health care in the US. The concept that every person has the expertise, time and guts to play the market to fund their retirement is a non starter. We have to come to a consensus on what social programs people ought have.

[Michael Bulatovich]

You're counting on new technology to bail us out? I can't get mine to pick up her laundry.

No. Heard about it. They haven't killed the movie yet, have they? BTW, electricity is not as clean as it seems at the plug.

One of my favorite things about Canada.

Good luck. Maybe new technology will lead to new consensus...

[3D Peruna]

Climate change is happening... it has always happened. It will always happen. But, every day, I see more actual evidence that the whole "global warming" thing is not real...not at least from humans must do something quick to avert certain disaster. (The latest is that the 20th century weather station network has so many problems that it's really impossible to know if we've 'warmed' at all...

and

Somebody once figured that the "ideal" town size was about 30,000 residents with farms between them, located about 10 miles apart. But, they lived in an agrarian 19th century, so what did they know about cars and Internet and all that stuff. I put the same faith in that idea as I do in the developers of Sim City.

I'm telling you that 1) climate is a terrible reason to change anything because we can't do anything about climate, except adapt; 2) Topsoil depletion can be dealt with--good farming techniques solve this problem. But it does mean that 3) we stop thinking corn and soybeans are our savior from oil; 4) You missed the point of my post. Provide vast prosperity to the world and the world will stop having children. And "vast prosperity" doesn't mean everyone lives a north American lifestyle. It simply means they have the opportunity to feed themselves, house themselves, educate themselves and create jobs for themselves. If they cannot do it on their own, then it won't happen. I just read this:

Something to consider.

(for the record, my undergrad school does a lot of work in Africa teaching the locals how to obtain microcredit, clean water, grow crops, and feed the malnourished--due to political upheaveals and droughts. I support these efforts because the are very targeted and local, leaving the governments. for the most part, out of the picture).

The peoples of the world have, for the most part, forgotten the purposes of government. Government is not there to provide anything to anyone. Go read the Federalist Papers

and the US Constitution to get an understanding of what governments are for.

[3D Peruna]

Nothing scares me more than universal health care. If it comes, I want out. I hope I'm rich enough to pay my own doctors, fly to where I want to go for medical care, or whatever it takes. There isn't a country on earth with universal health care that I'd consider living in.

Universal health care is the last stop before socialism before communism. Just wait until the government is responsible for your health... and they'll start limiting what you get to eat (New York City), how much you must exercise...

Governments are not the answer. Governments have become the problem(s).

[Michael Bulatovich]

Nothing scares me more than the boogie man.

[gruhn]

Interesting. I think I like it. Archie school is usually intense and big group enough that you may well have fine fond friends of frosh failure. Computer geeks or history wonks won't have had quite the same experience and ultimately probably don't care as much about those people gone by the wayside. Even more so with the ones that took a couplefew years to ... eject.

This supports the argument that it is not actual concern for planet/ environment/whatever that is driving the "issue". That is, they aren't serious about it.

[Michael Bulatovich]

Or that they dare not broach the subject.

[Señor Popcorn]

[Señor Popcorn]

Maybe they're taking a blanket approach (warming atmospheric envelope) to it.

[Michael Bulatovich]

Saw a poster for it in the subway yesterday.

[Señor Popcorn]

I said that about capitalism on here 4 years ago:

Tiny:

BIG:

I'm in the middle of watching this:

[Señor Popcorn]

Of course... But it was a good opportunity to illustrate that there are/were people out there who think/thought like that and follow/ed through.

Polygamy is theft. ;)

[Señor Popcorn]

Unsure you already know about the bit torrent peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol, but if you don't, I'd *highly* recommend getting into it. I suggest using 'Azureus Vuze' as the application:

Although it might take longer, downloading the above through dialup or satellite should be possible, (depending on your ISP's down/upload limits of course) since dropped connections are automatically reconnected if/when there becomes a connection. Vuze is also apparently a company that provides an inventory of media-- free and priced-- through their site that's accessible through their application. I downloaded and viewed the above show with it, along with a few others and other torrents already. It's great and I've practically said goodbye to tv.

[Edgar]

You'll just have to wait it out. Or else do like you do and be the flint that starts the fire. Look into WiMax, or other long range wireless technologies. Seems like companies looking to expand are losing a great deal of potential customers just because they aren't in range. But you've also said before, that people out there don't really care much (or know about) broadband.

[Kris Krieger]

3D Peruna wrote in news:xY0bi.48$ [e-mail]:

I spent 10 yrs in Canada, under "universal health care". Between the misdiagnoses, inability to get a second opinion, waiting times for specialists, and so on...well, it si a system that only works if you never have any serious health problem, or need for specialized care. If you wanted a second opinion, you had to go to the US an dpay for it competely out of pocket, because it would not be covered, nor would any treatment associated with it - even if the second opinion was the correct diagnosis, and the original had been completely wrong.

I know it's the truth, because it happened to me personally, also to someone I know well, and to a few people I knew peripherally. That is in addition to the stories that made the news.

People like to ignroe the down side, and call the stories of negative events "fables", but that's just another sort of agenda-pushing.

It's true that the US system is seriously flawed, but what passes for "universal health care" is not the answer. The main problem is that the politicians just want easy "sound-bite" answers, and do not want to actually have to *think* about it - and especially, nobody wants to discuss things and come to any agreements.

Gov.ts end up being bureaucracies that cater to the least common denomenator.

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I don't think that's what it is. I think it's that it's *easier* to turn things over to someone else. It's easier to not have to think, or learn, or take resoponsibility for one's actions, beliefs, or morals.

The gov.t tells ya what to do, the preacher tells ya who to love and who to hate, the teevee tells ya what to buy, the neighborhood committee tells ya how to do your yard, and so on, and so forth.

[Kris Krieger]

"Edgar" wrote in news:466d6ff1$0$16299$ [e-mail]:

I have guns. I like to do target shooting. If I'd grown up having a Dad who was a championship Archer, I guess I'd have bows. But I grew up around handguns. So, for me, it's no differnt than Zen Archery.

I get quite tired of hearing all this pop-psyche BS about why *anyone* has guns. IMO, it's jst plain stupid. There are various reasons - and not all of them have to do with paranoia or shooting animals or whatever.

If I couldn't have guns, maybe I *would* take up Zen Archery. Or maybe Javelin. In which case, I'm sure we'd then get a lot of absurd pop- psyche nonsense about *those* as well.

=:-/